As I said Polo.... Go back and do a search for our past discussions. Look for Mike Renihan's (John Tombes) posts also on Genesis 17.
Who Defines "Reformed"?
- Thread starter R. Scott Clark
- Start date
- Status
aleksanderpolo
Puritan Board Freshman
Randy, I read the past discussion. You just stated that you "believed Abrahamic covenant is ..." without really arguing for your position. You just keep asking people to go back and read Coxe or past discussion as if the conclusion is reached, but it's not. Go back to the past discussion, like this one: http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/esau-covenant-30290/ and argue exegetically, from the text, not just state you belief, that God established two covenants with Abraham, and that Coxe's view of covenant is the historical definition of covenant theology, please?
But again this is
, sorry Dr. Clark.
But again this is
, sorry Dr. Clark.
Last edited:
To echo the sentiments of your fine post linked in the OP -- the American churches do not get to define whether theocratic elements are objectionable or not. The establishment principle is reformed. Those who reject it are not.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
So the (conservative) American Presbyterian churches are not Reformed?
Not on the Church/State issue.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
So are they not Reformed, or not Reformed on the church/state issue?
The issue is one of historical identification. The question is, Who decides what is reformed? My answer is, Not those who reject the establishment principle. Those who reject the establishment principle seek to redefine reformed faith and life, and thereby place themselves outside the reformed tradition. Should clarification be asked, as you have done, I qualify that it is specifically on the issue of Church and State. But whether a man hits his golf ball out of bounds by an inch or a hundred feet makes no alteration to the fact that his ball is out of bounds and he has no right to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in play.
It still is not altogether clear to me how Dr. Clark's use of the Confessions as received by the churches really definitively sets out what it means to be Reformed. I understand that the animus imponentis can clarify how a particular clause or chapter is to be understood, but I had thought that this was on points where there was ambiguity. If the American Presbyterians reject the Establishment principle or say that denial of creation in the space of six days is all right, why do they get to use the term "Reformed" of themselves? It seems like it comes down to a circular argument in that the Reformed Confessions define what it means to be Reformed; but those confessions are to be taken as received by the Reformed Churches; and if those churches receive them in a contradictory manner? How does this not come down to, "If a church says it is Reformed and receives a Reformed confession then the changes it makes to the Confession are OK and it is still Reformed." Help me out: what am I missing here?
Last edited:
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Southern Presbyterian
Puritan Board Doctor
Mine too.
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
I don't mean any disrespect when I ask this: But what does it matter if hold such a view when your denomination isn't the established church?My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
I don't mean any disrespect when I ask this: But what does it matter if hold such a view when your denomination isn't the established church?My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.
A witness to the truth, grounded upon God's Word, always matters.
The same question could be directed to any witness to any particular subject where God's Word testifies to the duties of ecclesiastical or civil authority which are, in reality, lacking or deficient. If God requires it, it is better to testify to that truth, according to our place and station, then leave this doctrine, which is part of the whole counsel of God, left unsaid or actively opposed.
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. (Heb. 2.8)
Last edited:
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Is the burden of proof on me to pull all the historical documents to show that they did not call themselves Reformed?
I have already indicated that I'm fine with the term "confessional" baptist and that I agree with Scott's differentiation. However, it is not difficult to see where the confusion comes from as the following quotes come from the Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith.
By the way, does John Gerstner count as a Truly Reformed guy? This was his take on baptist theologian, Strong . . .
And, in a discussion of revivalism . . .
And, when discussing "Calvinism in America" . . .
These were all different articles by different scholars, all of them Reformed, writing in the Encyclopedia of Reformed Theology. Hey, guys. Don't beat up us baptists too badly when your own reference books make the same "mistakes."
Last edited:
A few questions and comments:
Is John Owen reformed? Wasn't we a congregationalist?
Who has the right to give us a sliding scale of who is more reformed than others?
Isn't it a prerogative of every group to define themselves as they wish. Presbyterians may sniffle and moan but if baptists want the category "reformed" in front of their names to identify themselves with the 1689 confession, then the reformed cannot stop them and should stop their whining.
Last time I checked there was no little copyright symbol above the name reformed.
Finally, given the company of those that call themselves "reformed" to include many groups that are grossly deviant in doctrine (whole groups falling away into apostasy), being a baptist who calls himself reformed or calvinisitic puts me in a lot better company.
P.S. Particular Baptist is a brand that is currently being used by many who trace their lineage from the anabaptist tradition. Therefore, this label, too, does not fit, for those that desire a modified WCF and are happy with the 1689. The term Sovereign grace baptist also is sometimes associated with more of a Fundyist and anti-confessional stance and so is not an adequate label. I prefer to simply call myself calvinistic and baptistic.
Is John Owen reformed? Wasn't we a congregationalist?
Who has the right to give us a sliding scale of who is more reformed than others?
Isn't it a prerogative of every group to define themselves as they wish. Presbyterians may sniffle and moan but if baptists want the category "reformed" in front of their names to identify themselves with the 1689 confession, then the reformed cannot stop them and should stop their whining.
Last time I checked there was no little copyright symbol above the name reformed.
Finally, given the company of those that call themselves "reformed" to include many groups that are grossly deviant in doctrine (whole groups falling away into apostasy), being a baptist who calls himself reformed or calvinisitic puts me in a lot better company.
P.S. Particular Baptist is a brand that is currently being used by many who trace their lineage from the anabaptist tradition. Therefore, this label, too, does not fit, for those that desire a modified WCF and are happy with the 1689. The term Sovereign grace baptist also is sometimes associated with more of a Fundyist and anti-confessional stance and so is not an adequate label. I prefer to simply call myself calvinistic and baptistic.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Earlier in this thread, I suggested Calvinistic Baptist as an appropriate title, even though Reformed is not. Later on, I found Blueridge Baptist's idea to be the best: "confessional baptist."
Interestingly though, Spurgeon (a baptist) had no problem with all of these terms.
Interestingly though, Spurgeon (a baptist) had no problem with all of these terms.
One of his greatest pieces was "A Defense of Calvinism," certainly thinking he was speaking ab out his own view.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Pergy,
Really? I have never heard the term used other than to describe Reformational baptists (you know the ones tracing to Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) AGAINST the anabaptists. In church history it was used to differentiate the Calvinistic baptists who believed in a "particular redemption" (the larger group) from the Arminian ones (the smaller group).
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I have heard others use the term "Historic Baptist" but that can be problematic as well because some will associate it with Landmarkism.
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
"reformed"
I enjoy using the term Reformed Baptist in conversation with people who ask what I believe. Everyone has heard of Baptist churches. When I say "reformed" They almost always respond with- What do you mean reformed baptist? This tells me that unlike most of the brethren in here ,the person who inquires about the adjective reformed , does not know the difference between , a Baptist, Presbyterian,Christian Reformed ,etc.
So I use it as an opportunity to explain that in general that believer's in these churches are generally more earnest in their desire to search out the truth of scripture.
I then in some way speak to the doctrines of grace. I try to make a simple yet clear explanation of the saving work of Christ.
I point out that I can fellowship with any believer who is saved by the blood of Christ, that we are brother's, even if we might differ on some of what we understand from scripture.
In linking to the term "reformed" I have always tried to lengthen the cord,and strengthen the stakes. What I mean by that is, I like some of what Luther wrote, but I am not Lutheran . Why are we not all Lutherans?
I like what I have read about some of the Scottish Covenanter's in the book Fair Sunshine, Why are we not all Scottish Covenanter's?
Many of my books are written By Presbyterian's. Indeed I am eternally grateful to God that he has used many different living stones, with different levels of maturity to help me learn more about the word of our God.
So in general ,in public, I am not meeting that many persons who make as fine a distinction as some of you brother's are want to do.
If I can plant a seed in someone's mind that God will allow to grow I will rejoice with the angels for that person if and when God gives new life to them.
I would not have a problem with linking a new convert with most of the men in here, because I know that you are in the word,and serious about the command to make disciples. If you are teaching something that needs correction, I am confident that the Spirit of God is able to correct and guide His Sheep, despite some of our failings as we have this treasure in earthen vessels.
I enjoy using the term Reformed Baptist in conversation with people who ask what I believe. Everyone has heard of Baptist churches. When I say "reformed" They almost always respond with- What do you mean reformed baptist? This tells me that unlike most of the brethren in here ,the person who inquires about the adjective reformed , does not know the difference between , a Baptist, Presbyterian,Christian Reformed ,etc.
So I use it as an opportunity to explain that in general that believer's in these churches are generally more earnest in their desire to search out the truth of scripture.
I then in some way speak to the doctrines of grace. I try to make a simple yet clear explanation of the saving work of Christ.
I point out that I can fellowship with any believer who is saved by the blood of Christ, that we are brother's, even if we might differ on some of what we understand from scripture.
In linking to the term "reformed" I have always tried to lengthen the cord,and strengthen the stakes. What I mean by that is, I like some of what Luther wrote, but I am not Lutheran . Why are we not all Lutherans?
I like what I have read about some of the Scottish Covenanter's in the book Fair Sunshine, Why are we not all Scottish Covenanter's?
Many of my books are written By Presbyterian's. Indeed I am eternally grateful to God that he has used many different living stones, with different levels of maturity to help me learn more about the word of our God.
So in general ,in public, I am not meeting that many persons who make as fine a distinction as some of you brother's are want to do.
If I can plant a seed in someone's mind that God will allow to grow I will rejoice with the angels for that person if and when God gives new life to them.
I would not have a problem with linking a new convert with most of the men in here, because I know that you are in the word,and serious about the command to make disciples. If you are teaching something that needs correction, I am confident that the Spirit of God is able to correct and guide His Sheep, despite some of our failings as we have this treasure in earthen vessels.
Ivan
Pastor
Calvin wrote in the Institutes about a lot more than just soteriology (the "five points") -- I wonder if he'd appreciate his name being limited to represent only that.
I'm not sure he would appreciate his name being used at all for "labels", but point well taken.
Calvin wrote in the Institutes about a lot more than just soteriology (the "five points") -- I wonder if he'd appreciate his name being limited to represent only that.
I'm not sure he would appreciate his name being used at all for "labels", but point well taken.
Luther also was amazed that anyone would attach his name to the Church, referring to himself as a Pig if I remember correctly.
That would be because we're not Scottish. And yet there is no reason why we should not all wholeheartedly embrace the principles taught in the covenants seeing as they are the very principles taught by the Bible.
Ivan
Pastor
I haven't figured out the Keeling side of my family tree, whether they are Irish or English, but I don't think they came from Scotland.
servantofmosthigh
Puritan Board Freshman
Historically, there were two group of Reformers: the Magisterial Reformers and the Radical Reformers. The Magisterial Reformers comprised of the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Calvinists and Baptists. The Radical Reformers comprised of the Anabaptists and the Moravian Brethren.
R. Scott, why do you feel only the Presbyterians should have a stake on the term, "Reformed," when historically, Presbyterians were just one of many?
In Spurgeon's Day I remember one reference Spurgeon used to identify calvinistic baptists as "Particular" and of course, William Carey's society was the "Particular Baptist Missionary society for the Propagation of the Gospel among the Heathen". So, you are quite right as to the historica use of the term "Particular" baptist.
In our day I usually hear "Particular Baptist" used differently. There is a Particular Baptist Press that is run by a dear brother Gary Long in Springfield, Missouri who strongly seems anabaptist and attempts to trace baptist heritage through the anabaptists rather than the English Baptists it seems. I have talked to others as well who refer to themselves as "Particular" and who prefer to think of their tradition as coming out of continental anabaptism rather than English congregational history.
lwadkins
Puritan Board Junior
Dr. Clark's OP was directed to the question of who gets to define "reformed." Well, the definition of "reformed" has long been established. Current understandings of the word "reformed" are not definitions, but redefinitions. Many today like to use the word to established their orthodox bona fide's, however if you use the term "reformed" in a manner other that its long established meaning, then you are misusing it, no matter your doctrinal stance. Words are coined to foster communication between people, when you pour your own meaning into words it fosters miscommunication. Thus to call yourself "Reformed Baptist" lays the groundwork for all manner of misunderstanding.
In one sense "reformed" would mean that one's tradition draws from the Reformation, whether that branch is magesterial or radical.
Perhaps a better terminology would be "Reformational Baptist" or "Reforming"...
P.S. What would we call John Owen if we deny that he is Reformed?
Perhaps a better terminology would be "Reformational Baptist" or "Reforming"...
P.S. What would we call John Owen if we deny that he is Reformed?
hollandmin
Puritan Board Freshman
Amen!
From a Refor.....er.......calvinis.. . . ..er..... particula.......er...... oh just a Baptist who holds to the doctrines of grace.
Granted I think there is only one way to spit a hair
Blessings,
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Yes, but they are heretics who deny the doctrines of grace.
- Status
